"the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism)

Nothing about not believing in the "super natural".

Nothing about not being religious, in fact there are atheist religions like Buddhism, Raelism, Scientology, and many more.

Nothing about not believing anything, in fact by definition it is a belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

Being any atheist doesn't nessecarily make you a free thinker or a genuis or anything else. It just means you don't believe in God.

No, atheism is not the 'belief' that there is no God. Do I have to spell out the logic behind atheism to you?

To state that there is a supernatural entity, or if you prefer, God, you need evidence. Since there is no evidence to make such an assertion, and atheist is a person who recognises that this is an incorrect or void assertion. Or, someone who does NOT make the assertion that there is a God, if you prefer.

Anyone who 'believes' that there is no God is just as deluded as those who 'believe' there is one.

Also, as per definitions, on the very same link you supplied:
"The disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

Disbelief, as in lack of or rejection of belief in something.

Anyone who 'believes' that there is no God is just as deluded as those who 'believe' there is one.

Anyone who doesn't believe magic exists is deluded too

Anyone who doesn't believe magic exists is deluded too

You misunderstand me. There is a difference between believing something doesn't exist, and not believing it (that magic exists).

The first uses belief to justify their claim, whereas the latter considers the claim incorrect. As in, a lack of belief in something.

"the doctrine or belief that there is no God." (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism)

Yes, that's one definition of atheism. If you look further than the end of your nose you will find that *lack of belief of a deity* is also a commonly used definition of atheism.

Nothing about not believing in the "super natural".

No shit, Sherlock. Atheism deals with lack of/disbelief in a God. Although almost all atheists also do not believe in the existance of anything supernatural.

Nothing about not being religious, in fact there are atheist religions like Buddhism, Raelism, Scientology, and many more.

Nothing at all. Just the lack of belief in God. Not believeing in a God does not prevent one from holding other beliefs.

Nothing about not believing anything, in fact by definition it is a belief. Atheism is the belief that there is no God.

As previously stated, atheism is also defined as *lack of belief in a deity(God)*

Being any atheist doesn't nessecarily make you a free thinker or a genuis or anything else. It just means you don't believe in God.

Again, no shit, Captain Obvious. Being an atheist does not make you anything. But being a freethinker (or a genius, for that matter) can easilly turn one to realize the absurdity of a God's existance.

Yes, that's one definition of atheism. If you look further than the end of your nose you will find that *lack of belief of a deity* is also a commonly used definition of atheism.

Nothing about not believing in the "super natural".

No shit, Sherlock. Atheism deals with lack of/disbelief in a [i]God. Although almost all atheists also do not believe in the existance of anything supernatural.



Nothing at all. Just the lack of belief in God. Not believeing in a God does not prevent one from holding other beliefs.



As previously stated, atheism is also defined as *lack of belief in a deity(God)*



Again, no shit, Captain Obvious. Being an atheist does not make you anything. But being a freethinker (or a genius, for that matter) can easilly turn one to realize the absurdity of a God existing.

He's arguing against me on that point, because I suggested that atheists by definition should also reject all forms of supernaturalism. That seems increasingly like a personal definition though, so I could easily be wrong.

From the Greeks: atheos; Godless

I disagree that you couldn't categorize an atheist as a free thinker.

Who said that atheist = genius? Sounds like somebody (the OP) is projecting, in the Freudian sense.

There is a difference between believing something doesn't exist, and not believing it.

There is no difference. If I reject a belief that means I believe it is wrong. Disbelief is a belief.

Belief is not synonymous with faith. The things I know for fact, I believe to be true.

This is of course unless you're an idiot who thinks (or believes) that he can explain the mysteries of the Universe through known fact. Can you?

How can you not believe in God without believing in no God? You either believe in God, you believe in no God, or you are agnostic. If you are saying that athiests are essentially undecided because of lack of physical evidence, then you are talking about agnostics.

You misunderstand me. There is a difference between believing something doesn't exist, and not believing it (that magic exists).

I believe magic does not exist. Oh crap, I must be deluded now

It's the same thing. If you don't believe in the existence of something, then you obviously don't think it exists and thus, you don't believe it exists. Either or

Hahaha, more arguing over what is and is not?

* * *

It's the same thing.

Exactly.

instead of my typing out a huge respose to you why your fucking WRONG ill just say your retarted and u think you have mastered logic.

Fuck you


Athesim is by far from that definition, And your major problem is your belife and your definition of the word "belife" and our knowledge and fact of the word in your defintion with belife.

You treat the word as a mention or hint of spirtuality, we dont... because that is NOT what it is Belife means a notion or idea of a concept thereof not a fucking way of being state of mind ect. You sir.... are wrong. And there are no Athesim off branches ... why? Because then that falls under agnostic witch are Taoist Buddist Satanist ect. Athesim or what i like to Call REALITY is that... nothing more nothing less and the fact you try to spew your newfound bullshit logic on to the prepubescent masses inferioutates me.

If you are saying that athiests are essentially undecided because of lack of physical evidence, then you are talking about agnostics.

That's not true. Agnostics, when concerning the issue of god, are those who think that it is impossible to prove the existence or non-existence of god(s).

Agnosticism:

"an intellectual doctrine or attitude affirming the uncertainty of all claims to ultimate knowledge."

"The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge."

"The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist."

-- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnosticism


You can believe it is possible to prove (or disprove) god(s) (and thus not be agnostic) while still maintaining that nobody has provided sufficient evidence for a god.

I believe magic does not exist. Oh crap, I must be deluded now

It's the same thing. If you don't believe in the existence of something, then you obviously don't think it exists and thus, you don't believe it exists. Either or

They're the same thing if you have no logical or factual reason for your view. If you believe something to be true it's because you don't know it is.

There are two types of agnostics. Those that believe that proof of God or lack thereof is impossible, for the time being. And those that believe there can never be any proof. Myself and many others (like Richard Dawkins) consider the former to be agnostic.

There are two types of agnostics. Those that believe that proof of God or lack thereof is impossible, for the time being. And those that believe there can never be any proof. Myself and many others (like Richard Dawkins) consider the former to be agnostic.

There are many definitions of agnosticism, depending on whom you ask.

Wikipedia suggests there are 8 seperate kinds, for example.

Edit: Although Burtrand Russel agrees with you in terms of the former definition.

Myself and many others (like Richard Dawkins) consider the former to be agnostic.

Both of those fit with how Huxley defines agnosticism. I don't see how either of those definitions necessarily applies to someone "undecided because of lack of physical evidence". One could be "undecided because of lack of physical evidence" while believing it is currently possible to prove one way or the other...

One can be an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. If he doesn't believe in a god because of lack of evidence, he's an atheist. If he believes it is impossible to prove (currently or always), he would be an agnostic as well.

Edit: Although Burtrand Russel agrees with you in terms of the former definition.

He agrees with Huxley.

"An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time."

That's a reiteration of Huxley's definition.

Again an arguement stems from the lacking of concrete definitions. You all faill.

He's arguing against me on that point, because I suggested that atheists by definition should also reject all forms of supernaturalism. That seems increasingly like a personal definition though, so I could easily be wrong.

it's not personal, i also hold your views, and there are alot of us.

[QUOTE=socratic;9030781]No, atheism is not the 'belief' that there is no God. Do I have to spell out the logic behind atheism to you?

To state that there is a supernatural entity, or if you prefer, God, you need evidence. Since there is no evidence to make such an assertion, and atheist is a person who recognises that this is an incorrect or void assertion. Or, someone who does NOT make the assertion that there is a God, if you prefer.

QUOTE]

"Evidence"? How about personal observation--does that count?

"Evidence"? How about personal observation--does that count?

I really doubt any of you have "observed" God. Best you can do is get an emotional high

Sure, personal observation counts. If you want to tell me you have experienced something that you are entirely certain was divine (i.e. supernatural, not explainable by natural phenomena) and that you feel that there is no explanation other than something divine and unique from all observable, scientifically documented occurrences, then yes. Personal observation is perfect.

However, in my few years since coming out of my mom's cooch, I haven't felt anything of the sort. I've certainly felt altered states of mind, but I always figured there was some better explanation than "magic".

"Evidence"? How about personal observation--does that count?

No. Did you personally observe it under repeatable test conditions?

"Evidence"? How about personal observation--does that count?

Well, considering that people have "observed" god in sandwiches and water stains, then not really.

Well, considering that people have "observed" god in sandwiches and water stains, then not really.

Why would those not count as God?

Evidence, especially of God, is a silly thing to demand. No amount of 'evidence' allows you to know any more then you already do.

But I think this all has to do with the definition of God, which is probably why Arms started that thread. If people understood what God means, they would realize they are always experiencing God.

The...'evidence'...is all around you...it is you.

^What happened to "everything is an illusion", dumbshit?

^What happened to "everything is an illusion", dumbshit?

I still believe that, asshat.

But I think this all has to do with the definition of God, which is probably why Arms started that thread. If people understood what God means, they would realize they are always experiencing God.

Okay, since you are the authoritative figure on the matter, please define God without any ambiguity or cryptic bullshit. Tell me in simple English and without any purple prose what God is.

I certainly believe that existence and consciousness and life are all miraculous, but only in the sense that the way things turned out seem to be an incredibly unlikely scenario. However, we can trace things back quite a ways with logical scientific theory and fact and get something that at least makes some sort of sense on a few levels. "God did it/is it" is a cop-out, and it grants us no practical knowledge of our current existence, other than "do this so you can go to another unsubstantiated dreamworld when you die". Religious thought too can be explained scientifically, without having to rely on supernatural occurrences. Religion explains religion with religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

Fixed.

"All thinking men are atheists"
--Ernest Hemingway

"All thinking men are atheists"
--Ernest Hemingway

I can't help but think that is bullshit. That thinking HAS to lead to atheism is ... Well... Bullshit.

I can't see thelink that makes all thinking men neccesarily atheists, I mean, shit, what about Aquinas, now that mutha-fucker thought like ... something. Kant anyone? There's a whole host of thinking men that weren't atheist. Well... Not that I can think of any more :P

So, why is a thinking man neccesarily an atheist?

^The implication is that theists are stupid, and when it comes to actually thinking and talking about theism, that's not untrue at all.

^The implication is that theists are stupid, and when it comes to actually thinking and talking about theism, that's not untrue at all.

A lot of atheists are also stupid, when it comes to thinking about theism, atheism and whatever else you want to add. A LOT of people in general are morons. What point does this prove?

All thinking men are atheists...

Theists could not figure out for the longest time anything about the real nature of the natural world. Here is why:

"The world is center of the universe, because God made it the center" CASE CLOSED. No need to check it out for yourself. To prove otherwise would be to question YOUR INFALLIBLE GOD (or at the very least his church). My understanding is that is a big no-no.

Took many THINKING men to figure our it was not the center of our solar system let alone the universe. Men who were not inclined to sit back and drool out the words "God did it" for every natural phenomenon.

Science is good like that. Thinking men of science stood up and said "Fuck that, I am going to find out what is really going on" Many were burned at the stake or at the very least excommunicated (sorry gallileo).

Old world christians cannot EVER be considered thinking men and should NEVER be taken seriously and for the most part they are NOT. Anyone who believes in an invisible man who lives in the clouds and watches when you jerk off and wants to burn your ghost forever b/c of it cannot be taken seriously.

While you may be able to debate whether or not ALL thinking men are atheists I would propose another version of that quote that is (imo) NOT debatable:

All FREE thinking men are atheists.

I can't help but think that is bullshit. That thinking HAS to lead to atheism is ... Well... Bullshit.

I can't see thelink that makes all thinking men neccesarily atheists, I mean, shit, what about Aquinas, now that mutha-fucker thought like ... something. Kant anyone? There's a whole host of thinking men that weren't atheist. Well... Not that I can think of any more :P

So, why is a thinking man neccesarily an atheist?

Thomas Aquinas introduced Aristotle to Christianity, and in doing so killed pretty much all forms of social, political and scientific progress for hundreds of years.

Immanuel Kant, as far as I've read of him, was only theistic in the sense that he attented a Christian university and studied theology. Theism had little effect on his philosophies.

Tell me in simple English and without any purple prose what God is.

God is all, God is you.

God is "that which is Absolute, fills all space, is complete in itself, to which there is no second, and which is continuously present in everything".

All FREE thinking men are atheists.

Wahahahahahaha....

So, why is a thinking man neccesarily an atheist?

Because the belief in god is irrational.

All thinking men are atheists...

Confucius (Founder of, obviously, Confucianism)
Mencius (Follower of Confucius more associated with idealism)
Xunzi (Follower of Confucius associated with realism)
Wang Yanming (Important figure in Neo-Confucianism)
Lao-Tzu (One of the founders of Taoism, credited with writing the Tao Te Ching)
Chuang-Tzu (Other main founder of Taoism, credited with writing the Chuang-Tzu)
Mozi (Founder of Mohism)
Han Fei (Founder of Legalism)

And that is only a small number of figures in Chinese philosophy (which I am most familar with) who were able to find a balance between a belief in higher forces and great thinking.

And that is only a small number of figures in Chinese philosophy (which I am most familar with) who were able to find a balance between a belief in higher forces and great thinking.

Did any of them believe in a god or gods? If not, they were atheists.

The REAL definition of atheism - people who have not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior and will burn in the fiery pits of hell unless they accept Jesus and give me more money....

Did any of them believe in a god or gods? If not, they were atheists.

Uh, yes they did, which is why I named them all.

Uh, yes they did, which is why I named them all.

I doubt it. For example, Confucianism is not concerned with deities. "High forces" are not gods.

I doubt it. For example, Confucianism is not concerned with deities. "High forces" are not gods.

You're right, Confucianism isn't concerned with deities, as it is a philosophy rather than a religion. But the man Confucius believed in the Chinese mythology of the time (i.e. The Jade Emporer, the Heavenly Aristocracy, etc.)

Well he obviously wasn't that religious. And this was like 500BC so Hemingway's statement shouldn't apply anyway.

Confucius (Founder of, obviously, Confucianism)
Mencius (Follower of Confucius more associated with idealism)
Xunzi (Follower of Confucius associated with realism)
Wang Yanming (Important figure in Neo-Confucianism)
Lao-Tzu (One of the founders of Taoism, credited with writing the Tao Te Ching)
Chuang-Tzu (Other main founder of Taoism, credited with writing the Chuang-Tzu)
Mozi (Founder of Mohism)
Han Fei (Founder of Legalism)

And that is only a small number of figures in Chinese philosophy (which I am most familar with) who were able to find a balance between a belief in higher forces and great thinking.

Although Confucianism is often followed in a religious manner by the Chinese, arguments continue over whether it is a religion. Confucianism lacks an afterlife, its texts express complex and ambivalent views concerning deities, and it is relatively unconcerned with some spiritual matters often considered essential to religious thought, such as the nature of the soul.

In short, he may have professed belief but clearly did not let the fantasy world interrupt or slow down his philosophy. People are still arguing over the fact that Confucianism may be a religion in and of itself.

I am sure by looking into these others there will be a familiar thread involving a supposed theist inventing new schools of thoughts and ways of thinking and turns out that there philosophy are in direct conflict with their supposed religion.

As I said...you CAN debate whether or not Ernest Hemmingway was correct in saying "All thinking men are atheists", but what you CANNOT debate is that all FREE thinking men are atheists.